126 comments:

The elites in DC would love to have more pork barrel. But they also understand that obama has lost a majority of his voters. And, only a really stupid move ... like reaching for a handful of pork ... would get Boehner kicked OUT!

McConnell? Have you noticed? The chinless wonder can't appear in headlines. Which proably means there are enough hungry senators looking at this doofus ... and, threatening mutiny.

IF there's any "lift" to the debt ceiling? Boehner's gonna suffer at the hands of the 'tea party,' who were really the first PORK BUSTERS!

Klein has forgotten the number of times Obama shifted the goalposts, abruptly left meetings, or when Reid nixed House solutions; of the freaking fact that when the Dems controlled both Houses they could not produce a budget!

Let's see: DJIA is down 35, Nasdaq is off 1; gold is up .7%, and bonds are snoring loudly.

I won’t say we’ve “won” the battle (not the war) until a bill I support (cut, cap and balance or a short term debt ceiling extension with at least a dollar of immediate cuts for every dollar that the debt ceiling is raised) has been signed into law.

And even then I’ll be on guard for when the other side tries to find a way to cheat.

Don't worry, Ezra. We'll stop winning after the 2012 election. But until then the Left is toast and getting toastier every day. How many Dems will even bother to run if they're up against even a remotely credible GOP candidate? Hitching one's wagon to the Obama-train at this point is career suicide, so he'll pick up zero new support. It's going to be Obama, MoveOn and Big Media against the country, and we're going to wipe the floor with them. Then we'll rest for a while, swear.

The word today is that Reid is going to go with Boehner on a plan that Republicans can vote for. Reid may not be as loony as his allies on the left. Remember, Steve Wynn is a big contributor of his and I think Reid may have listened to Wynn last week. Voters can talk and protest but when the big contributor talks, politicians listen.

"AA- your tags to this story include "taxes". Please change that tag to "revenues". Didn't you get the memo?"

Hey, Boehner got the memo. In his speech Friday evening following the break off of talks with Owebama, he used the word "revenue" over and over. Hey dumbass, it may be revenue to the gummint, but IT'S TAXES TO US!

I clicked the link to read the article – apparently “winning” means that we cut 2.7 Trillion from the budget over ten years – meaning instead of adding 14 Trillion to the national debt, we will “only” add 10.13 Trillion. That’s assuming that we believe the promises of 2.7 Trillion in spending cuts over ten years. Words are wind.

Not entirely true. We should stick to the good solid ground game, that's true, but one ill-conceived screen pass or pop-pass over the middle for short-term gain could easily get picked off and run back for a touchdown.

Better to grind away at them with a mixture of off-tackle and middle dives, sprinkled lightly with a few traps and stunts. An odd sweep or two to keep them honest wouldn't hurt either.

Short of an ELE or aliens landing, we should just leave the Hail Mary's for dems. They're going to be throwing a lot of them.

This is the third time in twelve hours I've seen the word 'brink,' and I've seen/heard four instances of 'edge.' Each time a visual image failed to form and I wondered, "Edge of what exactly?" So I filled the missing bit with "edge of the writer's/speaker's sanity".

Actually, he was the Journolist founder. That little piece of behind-the-scenes news manipulation was his doing. And I still want to see the archives and have Ann write her promised book about it.

As to the deficit, considering it's running well over $1 trillion dollars a years that should mean we need that much cut every year. $2 trillion dollars over 10 years is not going to do it. We need $10, or $12, or $15 trillion dollars over 10 years to turn this thing around.

Why would the Republicans want to stop? They retook the House with the promise to do something about the mess in which the Democrats have left the country over the last 4 1/2 years. Have the Republicans even touched ObamaCare yet? Corporate cronyism on a massive scale? etc.

We need to get government spending at least back to where it was, as a percentage of GDP, at least a half a decade ago. This is a start, but only a start.

Keep in mind that the Tea Party that put the Republicans back into control of the House, is intolerant of lily livered politicians who vote present or just to get reelected. This just an opening battle, and that is what Klein is worried about.

"We need $10, or $12, or $15 trillion dollars over 10 years to turn this thing around."

IMO, we have no chance of that kind of fiscal responsibility until the Senate and/or the White House changes hands. 2012 is everything. Until then, getting some real cuts and kicking the can down the road is not a bad strategy.

Well, no one in Congress has any incentive at all to cut spending. It's their method of obtaining and extending their power. Shoving money at friends and supporters enhances their political clout and prestige. It's been like this since before the pharoahs.

I said here last week that Dahlia Lithwick was a nail in Newsweek's coffin. Ezra Klein even more so. It's a shame he's such a fluent writer when he's got nothing intelligent to say.

garage, just because Reid is the go between with the President doesn't make the plan his.Though he's drafting a bill over Democratic objections, House Speaker John Boehner told House Republicans on a conference call Sunday that he's trying to hammer out something "that can pass in both houses." Boehner may see a path to pulling his latest proposal through Congress. A Republican aide told Fox News that the reason the two sides could not come together over the weekend was because the White House -- not the Senate -- objected. The aide claimed Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell were originally in agreement with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on the "general framework" for the two-stage plan that started to come together Monday. But the aide said, "the president said 'no'" when Reid presented the plan to him. By Sunday night, both the White House and Reid were on the same page.

Andrew Stiles at NRO has some more details on the House plan that’s been presented by the leadership. Basically:

Step 1

The House authorizes a debt limit increase of One Trillion dollars now to get the federal government through February/March 2012

Congress gets statutory limits on discretionary spending of $1.2 Trillion in savings over ten years with automatic across-the board cuts if the limits are exceeded. Note: the “cuts” are over a ten year period (less than 10 percent of the deficit over that period) and only apply to “discretionary” spending (which means that it would apply to spending such as Pell Grants if they are reclassified as “mandatory spending).

Step 2

In December a commission composed of twelve members (3 from each caucus) will come up with a recommendation of 1.6 to 1.8 Trillion in deficit reduction which will be subject to an up-or-down simple majority vote in both houses. Note that “deficit reduction” not “spending cuts” is the target so would be including tax increases or tax reform (that increases revenue) as part of the package. Also while it is not clear, I suspect that the targeted deficit reduction is over a 10 year period much like Step 1. Which means that instead of adding 14 Trilion to the national debt, we're adding about 11 Trillion.

If it passes, the POTUS can request an addition 1.5 Trillion increase in the debt limit subject to a Congressional vote of disapproval but if the committee fails to come up with a proposal (they need 7 out of 12 members to agree) then it proceeds through regular channels.

Finally after October 1 the House and Senate both have to vote on a balanced budget amendment the text of which is supposed to be posted online today.

Come on everyone - let's help Harry Reid and the Dems get their $2.7 Trillion. I will pledge $100 Billion - how about you guys do the same? Then maybe we can get even more bogus gimmickly savings and elminate the debt entirely! Hell when we are done helping him, Reid will turn the country's debt into a big, fat positive bank balance! Happy days will be here again!

Garage - It's the phoney baloney stuff Obama's been doing for awhile now; start with a baseline assumption that Iraq and Afghanistan wars will go on at high levels into the forseeable future, then cut from that level. It's nonsense.

On while were on the subject, how do project war costs for the next ten years? Even for Obama, it's lame.

Smoke and mirrors, asshole. These were already agreed to be considered "cuts," even though there's no guarantee that we'll stop fighting those wars, or the jug eared fuck won't come up with others to start. So far, he's dipping his dick in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan in addition to continuing wars in Afghanistan and occupation in Iraq.

"Paul Ryan includes those same savings in his budget proposal that I think every Republican in the world supports."

Does he call them cuts? If he does, he's full of shit, too.

There are two different things here. There's no problem with looking at the trajectory of war costs, making the assumption (a.k.a. guess) they will decrease, and building that into your budget projections. It's quite another thing to call them budget cuts.

Garage;Isn't it clear by now that "the devil is in the details" and the Republicans are not hip with cuts that are based on "improving efficiency" and cutting "waste fraud and abuse". I believe the folks at the table recognized the numbers must add up.

So public pronouncements mean nothing

and now press releases about "imminent agreement" or "big deal turned down" are meaningless also.

So we'll need to sit back, expect more public posturing and hope that something meaningful gets done before a downgrade in US debt. Of course "good" meaningful vs "bad" meaningful depends on your political perspective. (If only math had a political perspective.)

That, ironically would worsen the debt. I don't think the Republicans are that stupid.

There's no problem with looking at the trajectory of war costs, making the assumption (a.k.a. guess) they will decrease, and building that into your budget projections.

Actually, that's a huge problem. No one can possibly predict the arc of warfighting costs in any meaningful way. No one can possibly assume the absence of war after the specific wars targeted for cuts Iraq and Afghanistan have ended. You may choose some wars, but war can also choose you.

Cuts, in my book, means specific CUTS. Cuts in programs, departments, entitlements and so forth. As in, NOT SPENDING THE FUCKING MONEY!

Actually, they do want one. Just not one that involves allowing to the government to further bankrupt the country. Or one that requires the collective citizenry to use take it up the ass, sans lubricant and reach-around.

They want chaos.

Nope, that's your playbook. See: Alinsky, Saul.

More than likely they want him to go the 14th Amendment route so they can try and impeach.

If he attempts that, then he would richly deserve impeachment. Not even Bill Clinton was that crazy. He went the perjury route, instead. That didn't involve trashing the Constitution, just cumming on a blue dress.

The first time I saw Ezra Klein on a news show, I thought it was take-your-kid-to-work day. The most shallow thinker/talker on TV today. No doubt a rising star for MSNBC though. Gotta be somebody's kid - that's how Mika, Willie Geist, and Harwood got their break.

And your side has done what to alleviate the circumstances since? Hmm?

I look at the Republicans this way now, via Tarantino:

See, now I'm thinking: maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here... he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.

Things change, sport. The Republicans are trying. The Dems? I'm not seeing.

as someone somewhere on the interwebs said a week or so ago (sorry I can't remember exactly where I saw this):

Why don't they just take the 2006 budget, copy it, rename it, and pass it now? It worked then. Should work now.

Then start working on further cuts. Real cuts. Not just decreases in planned increases, real decreases from past spending.

If a family finds that it doesn't have enough income to cover its bills, the family must either make cuts in its spending or find a way to augment its income either by selling assets (garage sales, eBay) or having one of its members find another job to increase income.

The government has assets it could sell.

We, however, are the government's "second job" by way of taxing our income.

Paul Ryan includes those same savings in his budget proposal that I think every Republican in the world supports. Haha.

Can you provide original thoughts just once, rather than just pasting the nonsense you read on blogs?

Claim 2: “Paul Ryan’s budget also included this savings in its deficit reduction calculation.”

Reality: False. The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending relative to President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. This $6.2 trillion figure assumes ZERO savings from the global war on terror relative to the President’s budget.http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=253640

George Will's quote in the opening of this comment is kinda scary since Obama very well might try this:

"Why, one wonders, not ‘save’ $5 trillion by proposing to spend that amount to cover the moon with yogurt and then cancelling the proposal?"

This morning, NPR carried Cokie Roberts talking about how we have to get through this, and then we'll stagger on until the next time we have to raise the debt ceiling. That really crystalized things for me; we should be done with this. We should be done raising the debt ceiling every few years, but every few years we bemoan the deficit and fail to make meaningful cuts, and end up back in the same place. Well, it turns out that the tool to stop the bleeding is right in front of us. Default would be bad, but there's no reason for default to follow from failure to raise the debt ceiling; there's enough revenue month-to-month for the government to pay its debts, and to run some additional things besides. And my goal is to cap spending at actual revenue. So it seems to me that refusing to raise the debt ceiling while demanding that the President pay our debts before providing any other government service accomplishes de facto what I want; why trust some vaporware that doesn't come close to getting the job done? I hate to say it, but Bachmann's right. The cycle of spending can stop with us: The best deal on this issue is no deal.

"but there's no reason for default to follow from failure to raise the debt ceiling; there's enough revenue month-to-month for the government to pay its debts,"

Won't cover all current government contracts. The USA government is the single biggest purchaser of goods and services in the world.

The big problem won't be default. It is the possibility of a market freak out of massive proportions. Along with confusion about which creditors get paid -- not just the interest on the treasuries, but the legal obligations of government contracts -- this causes a shock to both the US domestic economy and chaos in the world markets.

I dunno, maybe they'll shape up in time. 1 out of 3 chance they don't.

"Claim 2: “Paul Ryan’s budget also included this savings in its deficit reduction calculation.”

Reality: False. The House-passed budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending relative to President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request. This $6.2 trillion figure assumes ZERO savings from the global war on terror relative to the President’s budget."